Has anyone noticed how some people communicate with those who disagree with them when they have the protection of internet anonymity? AIMN reader Mark Needham has, and Mark writes that in such environments it can be difficult to disseminate ideas in an engaging manner. But there is a way.
I have been trying to put my thoughts into words about political media on web sites such as this that allow comments on articles. I have been ‘chatting’ on several and seem to attract the wrong reaction.
The language that is most often used has always made me feel a little, unsettled. Its ferocity and vulgarity, is to my mind, uncalled for and does not lend itself to good conversation. ‘We should never give credit where credit is due’, seems to be our mantra.
I am an electrician; not an orator, wordsmith or philosopher. So please forgive my ramblings and presentation.
I have just had the pleasure of watching Peter FitzSimons deliver his National Press Club address. As the face of the Australian Republic Movement he has taken on a challenge that I am not keen about, a republic of Australia. I am a monarchist, but my heart is weakening towards a republic. Ah well, it will happen.
Now Peter said that he has some ‘parliamentary friendship thingy’ involving Joe Hockey. I wonder how long will it take to think up something bad about Joe, and not see that maybe he is genuine about this.
I have always liked Peter, read a few of his books, watched his footy career, just comes across as a good bloke.
“So what?” you may ask. Well, I have just realised what it is that I like about the man, which was solidified during this address to the Press Club.
He did not demean or vilify anyone who may disagree with him. He spoke of those with a different allegiance with some respect and gave allowance for different opinions, without nasty comment.
Peter’s language is engaging, not combative. You feel a desire to hear each word and evaluate each sentence. One is ‘made to listen carefully’ not because he insists, but because his demeanor invites you to do so. There is a balance and civility that is not evident in the general political media.
The ‘verbal ferocity’ that I see that often exists, is shot from the hip, comes from the heart or comes from the gutter. I am quite sure that ‘web combatants’ would not be as aggressive if they had met in a pub, had a beer, introduced themselves and carried on the same conversation.
We are all ‘nice people’, at least in our own mind (me in particular) but our hackles rise when questioned or when someone disagrees. It always appears as a challenge/derision to me personally. Then I rise to the occasion, reply and from there on, the conversation is on a down hill slide.
Reading the above, I can detect a ‘lecturing tone’ which is not my intention. I wish that I could engage people, the way Peter does, in a better way to communicate and exchange opinion and ideas.
I have spent the last few days trying to get this on paper, written a bucket full of rubbish and suppose this effort to be OK. Most will determine this also to be discarded and burnt. It is just that I wish, we could rise above the miasma of our prejudices, and get fair dinkum.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
